Jump to content


Mavric

Admin
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    103,334

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    465

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Mavric

    Starting Lineup Campaigning Thread

    in Contest Crib

    Posted

    Consider the following:

     

    Previous Nominations:

    sd'sker

    Husker_x

    huKSer

    commando

    dudeguy

    MichiganDad3

    Haspula

    corncraze

    lo country

    hskrfan4life

    teachercd

    killer cacti

    redout22

     

    +1 Standings:

    B. B. Hemmingway

    Blitzfirst

    gobiggergoredder

    Haspula

    Hujan

    huKSer

    Huskerfaninokieland

    Husker_x

    lo country

    MO Husker

    sd'sker

    skersfan

    strigori

    suh_fan93

    teachercd

    VectorVictor

    Hoosker

    Roxy15

    Blackshirt007

    Scalia has passed away

    in Politics & Religion

    Posted

    Because the attempt is to show that he's not being bigoted. The impact of Fisher is that lesser-advantaged minorities won't be given a chance. These are the same minorities Scalia stamped down when he dismembered the Voting Rights Act. IN CONTEXT, Scalia consistently rules against minorities.

     

    Mavric put no more work into his defense of Scalia on this page than I put into my denouncement on page 1. Mavric's post is not 9 hours old and three people have +1'd it. One person has +1'd the other post. The context of Scalia's rulings are bigoted. Pointing that out isn't popular in this thread. Defending it, whitewashing it, is.

     

    Are people commenting in this thread interested in the truth, or are they interested in defending their ideology? It's ideology, all the way.

     

    +1 if you agree.

     

    If there are so many instances of him being bigoted, it shouldn't be that hard to find some that are not taken out of context, should it?

     

    Speaking of ideology, simply pointing out that someone rules against minorities certainly does not make them bigoted. You ideology may say that, but that doesn't make it true. That ideology would say "I don't care what the law says, you should rule this way because that's what I think should be done." Someone not as rooted in their ideology would be able to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

     

    "Ruling against minorities" may be an indicator of bigotry. But it may be that the cases highlighted the minorities were asking for more than what is allowed under the law. Not to be able to recognize that is more of a commentary on your own ideology than someone else's.

    • Fire 1

    Nebraska Tax Farmers/Ranchers vs. Schools

    in Politics & Religion

    Posted

    I'm pretty sure that any major building projects would have to be bonds voted on but the district patrons. There isn't a limit to that as long as the public votes for the bond. You can't use General Fund money (all the money that comes from the state and most of the money from property taxes) to do building projects. Now they could have gotten changes to the formula that help them out. But I don't think that would have made a large difference. And that money can still only be used for general operations and maintenance, not construction.

     

    Here is the valuation and levy info for all school districts for this year (sorted by county then district). You can see what each district is levying for each fund. The max for the General fund is $1.05 unless the patrons have voted to override that limit. General Fund money can only be used for operations and maintenance. The max for the Building Fund is $0.14 (not sure if that can be overridden) and that is used for construction. The Qualified Fund can be used for construction projects that have to do with health issues and has a max of $0.052. The school board can levy that without a vote of the patrons. But I would guess the interesting one for your question would be to see what that school district has in their Bond fund. I would think they have a decent amount in there if they've done some major construction recently.

    Nebraska Tax Farmers/Ranchers vs. Schools

    in Politics & Religion

    Posted

    I understand that the issue is based on the formula (that nobody can seem to tell me exactly how it is calculated).

     

    So, what you are saying is that when valuations go up, we should be receiving more funding from the local property taxes so the state should be funding us less. If it is as simple as that, I see some major flaws in that system.

    The formula isn't so much complicated as it is involved. That is, the calculations are fairly straight-forward, it's just that there are a lot of variables and you have to search all over the place to find each one. A lot of the information can be found here. It's not quite as simple as "valuations go up, state aid goes down" but that is definitely a large part of it. The simplest way to explain it is the state aid you receive is equal to what the state calculates you "need" to run the district minus what resources you have, which is mostly what you can ask for via property taxes. Thus, the more property taxes you can ask for, the more they subtract from what you "need" and thus the less state aid you get. I think the basic premise makes sense - not that there aren't other ways to do it, but I can see the logic in doing it that way. And I'm in a school district that gets zero state aid.

     

     

    Farm land is obviously the largest amount of assets that property taxes get their money from. For many years, farm land was valued at around 2,500 - 3,000 per acre and was fairly stable. Then, in the last 7-8 years, farm land has sky rocketed to 8,000 - 10,000. I have even seen some land go for as much as 12,000 per acre. At this time, commodities were at record levels. Corn was selling for around $7.00 per bushel. Farmers had great cash flows that could pay a lot in taxes. Well, this morning, our local elevator is buying corn at $3.35. Meanwhile, very few inputs have decreased even though when corn was going through the roof, they were rising right along with it. I believe the 3:35 is at or below what would be considered break even now.

     

    So, farmers are not in the same cash flow situation they were 3-4 years ago to be able to pay a lot more in taxes. (I'm assuming this is the source of the idea of Farmers vs schools)

    Definitely agree with this. And that is a lot of the problem. The huge increase in ag land valuations has dramatically shifted the balance of property taxes. The valuation of our district has quadrupled in the last 12 years, and we are over 90% ag land. In fact, this past year our district dropped our tax asking by $250k overall but it was still a tax increase on ag land because that much more of the balance had shifted to ag land.

     

     

    If you know the formula, I have a question. Obviously, it estimates how much in property taxes we should be able to get from local property. Is the valuation used in the formula, a value from the past 2-3 years? Or, does it look forward at what that value is going to be during the school year in question? I'm assuming the way the farm economy is going, the property taxes for the school year 2016-2017 is going to be lower than what it would have been in 2013-2014 or even 2014-2015.

    I haven't kept up on the formula as much the last few years because we aren't getting any state aid. But it appears to me that the state aid calculated for the 15-16 school year is based on the 2015 valuations - or at least the values used to calculate the taxes paid in 2015 as it's always confusing to me if 2015 taxes are paid in 2015 or 2016. But at any rate it is as up to date as they can have it as far as valuations go.

    Scalia has passed away

    in Politics & Religion

    Posted

    I used the word bigot, for good reason. I am not a bigot, and I find the bolded line an odd attempt at deflection. Let's not rewrite the history of Antonin Scalia.

    Eh, I think most of those quotes are being taken out of context. Seems like wherever you're getting them from is the one who's trying to rewrite the history. They are taking specific quotes and applying them in general to try to make a point. I'm not saying that makes the accusations false, but that specific remarks are being used to make a point that seems to be larger than what he actually said.

     

    Cue the semantic arguments:

     

    He was not stating that all blacks would be less successful. In the context of the case, they were looking at whether minorities who otherwise wouldn't have been admitted to the school because they failed to qualify should be admitted anyway simply because of their race. It shouldn't be surprising that students who are less qualified would be less successful. He's not saying that the school should not be desegregated. Simply that it should only have to admit students who are qualified, regardless of their race.

     

    Next, he was not equating homosexuality with the other items listed. It was in the context of "should sexual acts be able to be legislated?" It was pointed out that other sexual acts are regulated, which is clear when you look at the larger quote:

    Realizing that fact, the Court instead says: "[W]e think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." Apart from the fact that such an "emerging awareness" does not establish a "fundamental right," the statement is factually false. States continue to prosecute all sorts of crimes by adults "in matters pertaining to sex"

    Link

    So it wasn't a comparison of the acts. It was a refutation of the argument that sexual acts can't/shouldn't be legislated.

     

    Also, he wan't advocating the discrimination of women. He was saying the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. Thinking it should say something about it and having it actually say something about it are not the same thing. If you look at the context of the remarks, he repeatedly says he's not against certain things, just that he thinks they should be gone about differently:

    CL: In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

    AS: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

    Link

     

    I'm not going to particularly defend the last statement you quoted. I think it would be fair to criticize him for this. But I'm also having trouble finding a more complete context for it. From what I've found, that quote seems to be more directed at the fact that he thought Senators were feeling pressure to vote a certain way rather than actually vote what they thought was right. But that's getting pretty nit-picky.

     

    Like I said, I'm not saying that any of that disproves your assertion. But I think it's worth questioning when many of those points seem to be taken out of context. And I also think there can be a distinction between what a person feels personally and what they think the government can/should do. There are many things that I personally agree or disagree with but I concede that the government either can't do them or can't prevent them because of how our government is set up. Just because I say "the government can't do ....." doesn't necessarily mean I personally don't think it should be done. Sometimes it does, other times it doesn't.

    • Fire 4

    Nebraska Tax Farmers/Ranchers vs. Schools

    in Politics & Religion

    Posted

    To the title of your thread, I think that people are unfairly characterizing this debate as "farmers vs. schools". It's another way to try to blame the boogeymen man instead of really working to understand other points of view and work together to find a solution. It's not that the farmers, etc. are against the schools, it that they don't think the funding mechanism is fair.

     

    I think the major problem is the system was set up many years ago and probably worked really well for everyone at the time but the situation has changed drastically. Obviously the main people complaining - and being villified - are large land-owners. That situation has changed significantly from when the system was first set up. At the time, most people owned at least some real estate and very few owned a significant amount. Thus, (basically) everyone was contributing to the government projects in their towns and counties. Though schools get brought up the most in these debates, it's also county government, city government, hospitals, fire districts, community colleges and other government agencies. Now, property ownership has shifted dramatically such that a few people are paying for most of it while many pay relatively little and more than a few pay none at all. Yet even those who pay none at all get a vote in what should get paid for - so they can vote to spend other people's money. That's what doesn't sit well with many.

     

    And the thing is, agriculture has the biggest share of pie but I'm not sure it's fair all the way down the line. If you own a $100,000 house, you probably pay anywhere from $500 to $1,300 per year to your school district. That's not necessarily a huge amount but is it fair that you have to pay that while your neighbor down the street in the rental house doesn't have to pay anything? (You can make the argument that they're indirectly paying it but you see the point.)

     

    You'll also probably see it brought up that Nebraska is one of the lowest states in state aid to schools. But it's almost never brought up that we're one of the highest in property taxes to schools. That's simply a fact but many like to leave that out to make their point.

     

    As far as property tax reform goes, I haven't really seen what anyone's exact proposals are. The only generalities I've seen are to reduce the valuation of ag property to try to lessen the burden on that sector. I don't know if that would really change things a lot because in a lot of Nebraska school districts the valuation from ag land dwarfs the rest of the property such that reducing ag valuations wouldn't make any noticeable difference. About the only thing you can do - as far as I can tell - is to increase what the state is paying to schools so they don't have to get as much of their revenue from property taxes. And to do that they would need to raise revenue. And to do that "fairly" you'd have to raise taxes. Raising income taxes would be one option but I don't know how much that would shift the burden. I would think the "best" way to do that would be to increase sales taxes with that increase going to fund schools. Then everyone would be sharing the costs more.

     

    It won't ever be equal - nor should it be - but I think it would be better to tilt the field back towards level to some extent.

    Nebraska Tax Farmers/Ranchers vs. Schools

    in Politics & Religion

    Posted

    We were slapped in the face with the fact that our state funding is cut almost 30%. I am also involved enough to firmly believe that our school system isn't drastically wasting money. They have pinched pennies constantly when trying to provide our kids with as many opportunities as possible (however, still not to the level that we would like).

     

    I think what is missing from whoever is pointing out to you how far your state funding is being cut and from the article I posted above is WHY your state funding is getting cut that much. It isn't because the state is cutting that much out of what they are paying schools. Generally speaking, that amount is growing and will almost certainly continue to grow. Possibly not every single year but generally over time.

     

    The reason why your state aid is being cut is almost certainly because the valuation of your district is increasing. There are other factors in the TEEOSA formual (the model the state uses to determine how much state aid each district gets) but the biggest change year-to-year is how much your district is ABLE to levy for via property tax. It's not how much you are actually asking for but how much you CAN ask for. As your valuation goes up, how much you can tax for goes up and the state - in effect - says "we don't have to give you as much money because you can raise more of it yourself." You can see that in the York numbers. Their state aid dropped $1.5M from 08-09 to 14-15 but what they taxed for increased nearly $3.0M. So they were able to tax more, the state gave them less and they did tax more.

     

    I'm not saying that's the right way to do it. I'm just saying that's how the game is set up right now. I don't think it's right that basically half the school districts in the state get no state aid. But that's how the formula works. And to complain that your district is losing a bunch of state aid without explaining WHY your district is losing their state aid seems to me like you're more interested in complaining that working to find a solution. (None of that is directed at you, BRB. I'm talking about Lucas, other articles that I've read and possibly whoever is talking to you about losing state aid.)

    LJS: State of the Huskers - Offensive Line

    in Husker Football

    Posted

    I guess I'll just have to take you word for it because I don't remember a rotation. The only thing I can recall is the right side of the line back in '14 (Givens-Price, Chongo, Sterup). I wouldn't consider that an attempt to get players experience but an attempt to shore up a weakness, which this staff did with replacing Chongo with Sterup.

     

    I just find it odd that this has been a talking point for awhile now where one would think it's an issue at other positions. T-Ferg at linebacker. Antonio Reed, Kieron Williams and Aaron Williams at safety. I know A-WIll played a lot but I believe most of that was as the dime. One would think that he probably could have stolen some reps from Cockerel due to his struggles or given Gerry a series off here and there. Ryker for Tommy.

     

    I just don't understand why other coaches are allowed to play the guys that give the team the best chance to win while Cav has to develop depth. Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of developing depth, but I don't think it should take precedence over wining football games.

    The previous staff rotated the OL quite a bit - probably as much or more than anyone. IIRC, Sirles would flop from one tackle spot to the other depending on who else was in the game. ARod was in out out of the lineup quite a bit. I'm not saying that was the right answer, but it definitely happened.

     

    Part of the reason people are talking about rotating the OL in this thread is because it's a thread about the OL. Kind of works that way.

     

    I'm not saying we should do a lot of OL rotation. But I do think it's interesting how much we rotate other positions and don't rotate at all on the OL. We usually have a couple subs in on the DL on the first series of the game. Or at least we did early in the year. Might not have been quite so much as the year went on but we still rotated a lot. We rotated LBs quite a bit. I would definitely have gone for either of the Williams playing more than Cockrell - but this isn't a thread about the Safeties.

     

    So I don't think people are being inconsistent about it. We're talking about the OL in a thread about the OL. And it's basically the only spot - other than QB - that we didn't rotate.

×
×
  • Create New...